At Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:52:00 -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 11:29:46AM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > At Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:21:36 +0100, > > Alexey Melnikov wrote: > > > On rereading my message, it probably came out stronger than I intended. > > > But according to my English-Russian dictionary the verb "would" can > > > convey "polite request", which was my intent. > > > > Hmm... I'm still not sure what you're trying to say. My point is > > that there shouldn't be any consensus calls by anyone on the > > ietf-http-auth mailing list. It's not a WG. > > Are you saying that a design team can't have "consensus" or "consensus > calls"? Surely they can, though consensus internal to design teams > cannot, and, indeed, must not be binding on any other aspect of IETF > processes. Indeed. And so when the "document shepherd" implies that he or the AD will be issuing consensus calls, I think that implies something quite different from some internal design team consensus call. > So my question is: is the ietf-http-auth mailing list intended to act as > a forum for a design team working on draft-hartman-webauth-phishing? Good question. Let's ask the author of the document, who is the only person who can speak to the future direction of an individual submission. Sam? > > If the author feels differently, he is of course free to revise the > > document, try to build consensus, and resubmit to the IESG at some > > point in the future. Since it's an individual submission, no IETF > > process is needed or appropriate for that. > > I think that's exactly what's happening. That's not what I see, unless Alexey suddenly became the author of the document. Rather, I see someone claiming to be the document shepherd acting under the direction of the AD talking about the way forward. How is that the author revising the document, trying to build consensus, etc.? -Ekr _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf